Romney: Sure, I believe in man-made global warming

posted at 6:43 pm on June 3, 2011 by Allahpundit

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”…

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.

He said the same thing about climate change three years ago, which may have tied his hands in answering today. It’s a variation of his problem with RomneyCare: Either he reverses himself and apologizes for his previous position, which confirms voter suspicions that he’s a soulless opportunist willing to say anything to get elected, or he doubles down on his unpopular earlier position and risks hopelessly alienating the base. As with RomneyCare, he went with option number two. I see his logic, but in this case he’s got some flip-flop cover from Pawlenty, who’s already famously apologized for his previous endorsement of cap-and-trade. If Mitt now said, “My skepticism grew after Climategate” or “In a terrible economy, we need to prioritize growth” (and he probably will end up saying that), all would likely be forgiven. As it is, the I’ll-never-vote-for-this-RINO! vows are already piling up in the comments to our Headline thread on this. I don’t know what he was thinking.

Of course, McCain did okay among Republican voters even though he made no secret of his belief that carbon emissions are linked to global warming and even gave a speech on cap-and-trade after his nomination was secure. And he didn’t have the benefit of facing a Barack Obama who’s now even more widely reviled by conservatives than he was three years ago. Many sins can be forgiven in the name of winning, especially if/when Romney inevitably finesses his position here by endorsing “market solutions” to the problem instead of regulation. And as noted above, some of his competition is exposed on this issue too. Pawlenty, however apologetic he is now, will still be hammered with old soundbites by Romney’s team if he tries to attack on this; so will Palin, who ended up endorsing McCain’s scheme of carbon caps in her famous interview with Katie Couric (“I support all that we can do to reduce emissions and to clean up this planet”) before later slamming cap-and-tax plans in an op-ed in 2009. Going to be a lottttt of tu-quoquing on the trail this fall. Here’s the clip, via Think Progress.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

“Law of reality”? Now there’s a philosophical term. We determine what’s real. Government can influence people’s behaviors. You agree with this empirically given your belief that reducing taxes incents people to spend money. We can “make” other forms of energy more appealing by increasing the cost of oil relative to other forms, primarily through taxes. Your point about govt not being the most efficient at addressing problems is well taken. But there are some things only govt can do, and there are some problems that are so massive that only govt has the power to address on a large enough scale. Federal highways and walking on the moon could not have been accomplished by the private sector.

How is anything you quoted me saying demagoguery? I think we both agree that health costs are contributing to our country’s decline, although we may quibble about the climate change stuff.

Medicare inflation has risen more slowly than private health costs.

Palin? I said nothing negative. I just observed that the stance of your party lends itself to nominating the candidate who is most extreme and presents him or herself as the most ideologically rigid. Just look at the comments on this thread.

Taxes aren’t the problem. Lack of demand is. The stimulus offset the drop in demand. Neither taxes nor the stimulus have had a negative effect on demand. What does is the lack of increase in wages. Again, the stimulus mitigated unemployment and lack of demand. It’s bad enough that I’m writing this at 1:30 on a Fri night/Sat morn, I’m not about to scrounge around for references. But it’s true.

Obamacare as the reason why the private sector isn’t creating jobs? C’mon. Again, lack of demand. If you have a solution to increasing demand, offer it. The problem is that your ideology lends you to believe that no matter what, the private sector, if left unchecked, will make everything better, even when elements of the private sector (banking industry, Wall Street), caused it!

Okay, seriously! What party nomination is Mitt seeking? If he’s running in the Democrat primary, I’d switch parties to vote for him there in order to get Obowmao off the ticket but there’s no way he’ll ever be able to bend himself back into a Republican by the time us Ohioans get to vote. Does he have any core principles at all? Or does he always pander to his audience like this?

Obamacare as the reason why the private sector isn’t creating jobs? C’mon. Again, lack of demand. If you have a solution to increasing demand, offer it. The problem is that your ideology lends you to believe that no matter what, the private sector, if left unchecked, will make everything better, even when elements of the private sector (banking industry, Wall Street), caused it!

underceij on June 4, 2011 at 1:32 AM

You are delusional if you do not believe that Obamacare has not impacted job creation in America. Unless you are one of the few small business owners in America that aren’t concerned with how much these new employees are going to cost you, you aren’t creating new jobs. That is the problem. There is so much uncertainty due to Obamacare and the rest of Obama’s policies and that is causing the job creators to hold steady until the legal challenges to Obamacare are sorted out or until he is effectively neutered so that his policies will not cause more havoc.

As for our party selecting the most extreme candidates, what are you smoking? We haven’t nominated a genuine Conservative for President since Reagan in 80 and 84. And how’d that turn out for us? Landslide victories! The left likes to call anyone that has an R after the name “extreme” without any actual facts to support it. I recently had a friend of nearly 20 years “unfriend” me on Facebook because I said that moderates and liberals had made promises that the people in the state could no longer pay for. She jumped down my throat saying that the state had a Republican legislature. The concept that a Republican could be moderate was totally lost on her. You seem to be just like her. McCain was acceptable and electable right up until he got the GOP nomination. Then he became extreme! What did he do or say that was so different? Simply put, instead of criticizing Republicans like usual, he was criticizing The Messiah.

Yes. Uncertainty. Do you think employers create jobs merely as a social service?

But then again Nancy Pelosi sais The problem is that your ideology lends you to believe that no matter what, the private sector, if left unchecked, will make everything better, even when elements of the private sector (banking industry, Wall Street), caused it!

underceij on June 4, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Banking industry, Wall Street…along with, let’s see, Fannie and Freddie — which the Democrats pampered and protected. Toxic assets brought about by subprime lending, much of which was done at the demand of…government. Incest.

My problem is not with pols beliving in anthropogenic global warming, it is with pols chosing to supports policies and using my taxes or taking additinal money out of my pocket in higher energy costs, based on their belief, which is not my belief and in disregard of any actual evidence.

This guy has so many problems it is clear the only reason he has any support is because he can is the clear establishment candidate. His ignorance on the bogus Global Warming crap is ridiculous, but the worst thing is that he is a totally boring speaker. Is his announcement the other day it was a guy running for high school class president. No way, this guy would get killed by Obama

This guy has so many problems it is clear the only reason he has any support is because he can is the clear establishment candidate. His ignorance on the bogus Global Warming crap is ridiculous, but the worst thing is that he is a totally boring speaker. Is his announcement the other day it was a guy running for high school class president. No way, this guy would get killed by Obama

And your Kiwi” article has nothing related to scientific methodology; it’s just propaganda.

The experts, who are the highly trained scientists in the relevant disciplines, are in very strong agreement that AGW is a serious issue for our time. Much work still needs to be done to refine models and produce predictions upon which to better define what course of action we need to pursue.

There is no significant body of evidence (that I know of) that indicates that we don’t need to heed the advice to cut greenhouse gas emissions drastically to avoid disruptions in our climate. Of the ten hottest years in recorded history, nine of them have been in this young century; that alone, taken by itself, (correlating with a 30% post-industrial rise in carbon dioxide emissions), is very compelling evidence as to the efficacy of scientific climate modelling (as these rises were predicted as early as forty years ago).

You will not find any candidate for the dems or repubs that will dispute man’s influence in climate change (and disruption) brought about by AGW. This is because arguments to the contrary are, overwhelmingly, not based in science, and therefore, are not part of rational analysis of the evidence before us.

You will not find any candidate for the dems or repubs that will dispute man’s influence in climate change (and disruption) brought about by AGW. This is because arguments to the contrary are, overwhelmingly, not based in science, and therefore, are not part of rational analysis of the evidence before us.

oakland on June 4, 2011 at 6:54 AM

Care to describe the “change” in the climate (list “disruptions” as well)? Also, please tell me what the temperature should be.

the mcpain /RINO template for disaster= say anything. in a whore house willard would campaign for prostitution,at a nunnery against it.

it’s been several years- do republicants get that mccain lost through this sort of mess? what liberal loser absurd policy/ideology isn’t willard for even if only sorta vote for me look at my hair?

it rained acid rain for millions of years before mammals or even most life appeared on earth- was that man made climate change you HAVE to believe in or you’re a moron? the history of the planet is dramatic ‘ climate change” which doesn’t mean you stink the place up with irresponsible poisoning and destructive practices but it does mean man does not control everything and that makes wieners like willard and the democrats feel all itsy bitsy insignificant which, of course, they are outside of their own opportunistic self-absorbed heads.

AGW is such a load of bull$&!@. Even if I did believe in it, then I would have 100% more confidence in a capitalist society’s ability to cope with the effects than a socialist society’s ability to control the weather.

Climate change fabricators believe the earth’s climate must remain stable … with no variation … for thousands of years.

Any deviation from mild and sunny with an occassional rain shower is caused by man.

Their ideal solution would be to kill a couple billion people, and deny the rest the use of fossil fuels. They may use wind, solar and wood stoves. The ruling class, which will oversee the serfs who remain will have full access to all types of fossil fuels as they reign over us in unimagineable wealth and luxury.

But, Mitt’s got gravitas. Heard that last night on Hannity. Same commenter said SP doesn’t discuss policy right after her interview with Sean where all she did was discuss policy. She wants clean air and water, but adopting a highway for trash pickup is a long way from cap & trade taxes and carbon trading. This whole thing is a scam and we know it. Is Mitt seeing some easy money for his financial investment company?

Sounds more like he’s trying to attract the morons who believe everything they hear on the evening alphabet news … even though they may have just experienced the coldest and snowiest winter in recent memory.

Instead of Mitt saying he’d repeal Obamacare he should have said he’d repeal Romneycare if he could get a do-over. Strike 1!

Instead of supporting ethanol subsidies, he should have called for eliminating subsidies for all industries and all commodities. Strike 2!

Instead of supporting the notion that global warming is occurring and man is contributing to it, he should have stated that imposing government controls and abdicating our options to a UN climate control commission is outrageous, that the ‘science’ is far from settled and so far has been falsified instead. Strike 3!

As others have said, Mitt’s strategy is to stradle the fence and be the last man standing. It’s a sorry spectacle and outcome that the rest of the Pubblie elite will be pushing down our throats as we approach Nov 2012. Get ready to hold your nose in the voting booth!

I don’t know how many people care about this unless Romney starts talking about making energy more expensive.

Mitch Daniels was just about the only one of these people that did not at some point in time say something that might be construed as support for the theory of global warming..even Palin endorsed some kind of study group or something similar..Daniels called cap and trade economic imperialism and the purity people still called him a RINO..so apparently it is not that big a deal for most people.

To be honest, I think the whole discussion is mute. I have my doubts about global warming because the planet’s climate is always changing anyway. However, even if it is true to some extent..what could we do? Freeze in the dark? I don’t think so.

Mitch Daniels was just about the only one of these people that did not at some point in time say something that might be construed as support for the theory of global warming..even Palin endorsed some kind of study group or something similar..Daniels called cap and trade economic imperialism and the purity people still called him a RINO..so apparently it is not that big a deal for most people.

Terrye on June 4, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Oh, give it up. Daniels it out. And “purity people” is rich coming from the sort that’s forever picking Palin to death or pointing to this poll or that poll. We’ve got to have media-approval purity as well.

However, even if it is true to some extent..what could we do? Freeze in the dark? I don’t think so.

Terrye on June 4, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Well, it’s not true … to any extent. Anyway, sure, we should gladly freeze to save Gaia. Plus, the most selfless thing we should, no must do … is give the government more money. As much of it as they want.

Because as we all know, the world’s top scientists have all concurred that only massive, people killing and business destroying taxes will save us from the clear and present danger of … Climate disruption.

Odd how this thing has gone from global cooling to global warming to climate change to climate disruption. Odd.

If the Republican party really is looking for a maverick, moderate candidate with experience in running for preident, why settle for a mere copy? Why not pick the original? McCain. After all, it worked out so well last time.

“There is… a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It’s by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam….” -Mitt Romney.

Odd how this thing has gone from global cooling to global warming to climate change to climate disruption. Odd.

darwin on June 4, 2011

Well at least one person gets it.

I can not speak for darwin. But and I hope he agrees.
I first became a skeptic of AGW when the IPCC report on global warming was reported in the main stream media. I watched and listened while the reports grew fom 1000 scientists to 1500 , 2000 and then 2500 scientist who agree that mankind is setting the earth on fire. These reports kind of cofused me. I was still waiting for the ice age that had been predicted 40 years ago. So I decided to find information on my own.

The IPCC is in fact a part of the U.N. a political body. But most disturbing were the number of SCIENTISTS involved with the report. Not 2500 of even 1000. The best number I could come up with was 52. And yet the media reports that all scientist agree that AGW is a fact and the debate is over. For goodness sake even the 52 could not reach a consensus.

Yes I even watched Al Gore’s movie. Gore lost me when he stood up in front of the whole world and lied about his own graph. The graph did as Gore said show that there is a relation between tempature and co2. Al Gore lied when he said a rise in co2 causes a rise in tempature when in fact his own graph shows just the opposite.

I not asking anyone to accept my scepticism.
Just ask yourself a few questions.
Has it ever been warmer before 1900 than it is today?
Has co2 levels been higher than they are today?
Does an increase in co2 lead or lag global warming?
Do REAL scientist use observed and recorded data or gigo computer models to reach a conclusion?

We hit the peak of the most recent temperature upswing in 1998, and have been mostly trending downward sense. The clime in temperature from the seventies until then was not CO2 driven, but cyclical in nature, and the contribution of CO2 to the temperature increase is speculative at best, contaminated by the clime out of the little ice age. The experts aren’t the ones writing the alarmist calls for industrial regulations. The average temperature has been significantly higher than it is now, and those were times that civilization flourished. The most solid consequence of increased global average temperature would seem to be a slow increase in sea level, but that did not seem to be a significant problem in previous warm periods, and is easily adapted to.

We hit the peak of the most recent temperature upswing in 1998, and have been mostly trending downward sense.

The data don’t support your assertions. The aughts have been the warmest in recorded history. The year 1998 was hot, but 2010 was hotter, along with 2005. The trend has been un-mistakably upward. This is easily verified by trendlines on graphs of worldwide average temperatures.

This is exactly the trend that has been predicted for several decades, and is due to human activities with a greater than 90% probability.

Has it ever been warmer before 1900 than it is today?
Has co2 levels been higher than they are today?
Does an increase in co2 lead or lag global warming?
Do REAL scientist use observed and recorded data or gigo computer models to reach a conclusion?

PS my apologies to darwin if I drug him/her into my rant.

TomLawler on June 4, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Glad you’re asking questions. The answers to these can be found from many sources. I would suggest that you simply browse the internet (assuming that you may not be able to access a university library) for sites that are devoted to scientific progress on this issue. I would suggest NOAA as a beginning, but the National Academies of Sciences is an excellent source.

I believe that you are correct that Mr. Gore doesn’t need to be listened to, as he obviously has a limited understanding of the science. The experts are the ones you need to listen to (and “Lord” Monckton is no more an expert than is Al Gore).

This is exactly the trend that has been predicted for several decades, and is due to human activities with a greater than 90% probability.

oakland on June 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

No it’s not. Climate models and predictions have all failed spectacularly. In fact, the reason science fabricators now use “climate change” is because nature didn’t buy their wildly innaccurate “global warming” predictions.

Do you believe the earth should maintain a steady temperature with no cooling or warming trends?

Do you believe the earth should maintain a steady temperature with no cooling or warming trends?

darwin on June 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I don’t think we should be accelerating the changes that may occur naturally. Slow adaptation is much more tolerable than the very fast and unprecedented changes that we see occurring now, and that scientists (you know – the trained experts) are saying is mostly the result of our own activites.

The scam to steal trillions and enslave the global population. You know, your religion.

darwin on June 4, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Just as I thought. You’re not referring to the science. But, rather to your own fears of “enslavement”.

I would submit that “enslavement” would be the least of our worries should anthropogenic warming continue unchecked.

Five years ago there might have been some justification for a politician to buy into the climate ‘consensus’.

Based on what we know now, it’s no longer possible to support one who will not reject the con. So you either figure out how to wiggle out from under past positions or you double-down on the fraud and try to bull through.

Perhaps Mitt fears a ‘brainwash’ moment – wherein his father, the front-runner for the GOP nomination, made what in retrospect was an honest and accurate statement about the behavior of the MACV brass and his own reaction to it, and got taken apart in the press for it.

Anyone subscribing to a ‘belief’ that mankind is powerful enough to affect the entire climate of the Earth based solely on the fact that we have increased CO2 emissions by a very small amount is a total tool, retard, idiot, Democrat, whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
McCain didn’t have my vote last time around bcs of his cap-&-trade stance, or immigrastion, or campaign finance, etc.
He had my vote bcs he was the lesser of 2 evils.
Sick of this crap.
I’m really feeling America is getting her just desserts if this is what the people want out of a Conservative candidate.

His biggest problem will be getting past the conservatives and the religious bigots in the primary.

csdeven on June 5, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Don’t know about the religious bigots that you’re referring to but he won’t make it past the conservatives. He already has 3 major strikes against him and he seems determined to keep staking out anti-conservative positions on a daily basis.

As it is, the I’ll-never-vote-for-this-RINO! vows are already piling up in the comments to our Headline thread on this. I don’t know what he was thinking.

I’ll-never-vote-for-any-RINO.

If he’s actually claiming to believe in AGW, then he’s not only not paying attention, but probably pandering. This guy is so wishy-washy I don’t understand why anyone but the worst insiders would consider him attractive as a candidate.

OK; it’s been three days and not one posting that responded to my challenge to provide one datum that was “falsified”, and not one response as to which of those monitoring stations was “poorly placed”.

No lacking for ad hominem attacks, though. Of course, it’s easier to do that than to engage in thoughtful debate.

OK; it’s been three days and not one posting that responded to my challenge ….

oakland on June 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM

It’s been months, and you still refuse to admit that the Mann Hockey Stick has been debunked. In fact, you claim to not even know what the Mann Hockey Stick is.

You also refuse to say whether you think that any warming due to CO2 would be beneficial or catastrophic. Actually, I think you pretend that you don’t know how to look up the definition of catastrophic.